Three Tactics Progressives Use to Discredit Their Opponents

The other day, we put up one of our "chalkboard trees" about Fox News and the White House attack on free speech. Just as an aside, I listed the three things they were saying about us to try to discredit the network. That's when it hit me: They're the same three things progressives use to discredit their opponents on every issue.

The three things they continually use in disparaging any dissent are that those involved are: "wrong thinking"; the ideas presented are a "danger"; or that those opposed are simply in it for "profit." Meanwhile, their goals are always right, their methods safe and healthy and their motivation pure, enlightened and for the betterment of humankind and Mother Earth.

What we realized is that you can plug in any topic and find that the White House or their progressive allies have responded in essentially one or all three of these ways. Whether the issue is oil companies, the health care debate, the Chamber of Commerce, the stimulus package, immigration, Fox News, or the ever-popular "we inherited the problem" discussion.

This was part of a Barack Obama campaign ad on the evil, big oil companies, like Exxon:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Now Exxon's making $40 billion a year and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There was a little of everything, just in those few seconds: the wrongness of Exxon overcharging; the danger that oil companies pose by standing in the way of change; and of course, he's going to take away their profits with a "windfall tax."

Hillary Clinton got in on the act too:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON: The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Gee, profit sure does sound like a very bad thing in the world of the progressive, doesn't it? It almost sounds like it should be illegal. Although, I haven't seen a single one of them donate all of their money to heal crippled baby seals or buy condoms in the Congo or even do the "patriotic" thing Joe Biden said, and step up and donate it all to the IRS.

And I'm sure that's what Obama will do with the $1.4 million he's getting for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If not, it would make me think that maybe he just doesn't know any better and we should probably do what Hillary said and just take it from him. Because I mean, that's just a lot of filthy profit for him that he, quite frankly, just doesn't need.

Let's try a few more topics and see if our theory fits. Health care, for instance. There's wrong thinking; listen to Congressman Alan Grayson:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALAN GRAYSON, D-FLA.: The Republicans' health care plan for America: Don't get sick. That's right. Don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick. If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you're sick, don't get sick. Just don't get sick.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And, there's danger:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYSON: The Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And, we have crazy man Bill Maher, tackling awful profit:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER: I mean, really, what is the health care system in America but insurance companies making money by [expletive] people out of coverage even if it kills them... which it does, at least 20,000 a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Here's all three, rolled up into one, from Barack Obama — wrong thinking, danger and profit:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There are still significant details and disagreements to be worked out in the coming weeks. And there are still those who would try to kill reform at any cost. The history is clear: For decades rising health care costs have unleashed havoc on families, businesses and the economy. And for decades, whenever we have tried to reform the system, the insurance companies have done everything in their considerable power to stop us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Hmm… my theory seems to be holding up so far. Let's try it out on the Chamber of Commerce. Here's Barney Frank on the skeptics' wrong thinking: "There's a strong, very conservative ideology there... they're more like the Heritage Foundation than they are like an economic association."

It's also dangerous. Here's what White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki says about the Chamber: "We have an open door to the ideas and suggestions of the business community including the Chamber... but it does give us pause that they continue to throw millions of dollars against productive efforts under way to reform the regulatory structure, provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans and reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions — all plans essential to the continued growth and recovery of our economy."

But surely, there's no profit argument here?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: They are very good at this because that is how business has been done in Washington for a very long time. In fact over the past ten years alone the Chamber has spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying, half a billion dollars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now, let's check out the argument for the tea party movement. Wrong thinking, anyone?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANEANE GAROFALO: This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Danger? You bet:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw, I saw this myself, in the late '70s in San Francisco… this kind of rhetoric was very frightening and gave, it created a kind of climate which violence took place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Could there be a profit putdown there?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PELOSI: This initiative is funded by the high end. We called it Astroturf, it's not really grassroots movement, it's Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So, the argument works every time. But now that it's exposed, will it continue to work or will logic now kick in? Because, you see, if we add up all of these things, it doesn't make any sense.

For instance: I'm against health care, but because it's big, bloated government — all of the perks go to special interest and it destroys the free market system. When you give back the $60 billion lost in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, then you can come back to me and ask for another program!

I'm against cap-and-trade because it has been shown in Europe not to work. It's a special interest game. And you know who wanted it? Enron.

I'm for oil exploration and drilling because at no time in the history of the planet has anyone ever lasted as a society by cutting off their energy supply. You can't grow the economy and provide opportunity for prosperity for your people without energy.

I could go on and on explaining my reasonable reasons for opposing this president's agenda, but, if I listen to the logic of the left: If I oppose health care, I'm against the poor; if I oppose their ridiculous climate change bill, I hate the planet and I'm a flat-Earth, moon-landing denier; if I oppose illegal immigration, I'm anti-Hispanic; if I oppose the stimulus package, I'm against the president because he's black; if I oppose the massive deficit increasing exponentially by this administration, I loved it the previous eight years; if I support the troops, I'm a war-monger; if I attended a tea party, I'm crazy; if I favor traditional marriage, I'm a homophobe; if I oppose abortion, I'm against women; if I oppose the Fairness Doctrine, I hate diversity; if I oppose strong-arm unions, I'm against workers.

So, taking all of their arguments, one by one, and adding them all together, I guess it would be safe to assume that according to the inclusive, diverse progressives that I'm just a crazed, poor person-hating, flat-Earth believing, moon-walk denying, deficit-loving, homophobic, xenophobe, who is a homogenous, women-hating, racist, that loathes hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

Oh, did I mention I'm a warmongering, jingoistic fatso? That hates children? And puppies? And spits on trees? And shoots gerbils, just for sport?

And if I don't hate, I'm simply dangerous. A fearsome, mob-inciting, redneck, flesh-eating monstrous, rhetoric spewing, out-of-control religious zealot, bent on blowing something up, maybe even before the end of the show.

For good measure, I'm also in bed with huge multi-national conglomerates and special interest groups — like Goldman Sachs and unions. Wait, it's kind of tough to make that work if you've ever seen a single one of my shows, but let's not let logic get in the way of the White House's hysterical insults.

Now, which is more reasonable: That I'm all of these things or that I'm a person who takes things issue by issue? And doesn't it seem reasonable to now say that the "politics of the past" are those who judge things based on party or by group? And moving forward, what we're starting to see more of are individuals, who look at each issue differently and don't base their opinions on political affiliation or union membership or right versus left, but right versus wrong.

See, they have to shout you down. They have to say that you're a bigot or that your only concern is profit, because you're a greedy hate-o-phobe — or whatever — because they have no logical argument. Because, if they had any logic at all, we'd never have this from Republicans or Democrats.

No logic ever gets you there — that's selling our children's future. That's indefensible. So what is their real agenda? Control. All of these things that I wrote up on the board last night, they are all about control.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel